Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
The Wichita Eagle notes that Brownback has announced he will add the flat tax to his Presidential platform:
Remember the flat tax? The policy proposal gained traction among conservative politicians for a while in the 1990s, but it withered amid little real-world political support.
Now it’s back, as a fiscal policy cornerstone of Sen. Sam Brownback’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
It calls for earned income to be taxed at the same marginal rate, unlike the current system, which has different tax brackets for different incomes. Typically, proponents of a flat tax call for eliminating most deductions except for a sizable individual exemption.
“We need a flat tax instead of the dreadful, incomprehensible tax code we now have,” Brownback wrote in the letter that announced the creation of his presidential exploratory committee.
Frequent visitors to TheAntiSam will remember Brownback’s previous flirtation with the flat tax. In March of 2006, Brownback held hearings on the Flat Tax with the stated goal of implementing it in Washington D.C.
Over at The Right’s Field, Matt makes an interesting comment on Brownback’s adoption of the flat tax platform for his presidential campaign:
What this does do, though, is define Brownback as a candidate with strong beliefs at a time when other leading Republican contenders are regularly lambasted for flip-flops and shifting political visions. Not every Republican will go for a flat tax, but it will certainly distinguish Brownback from other candidates - just as his stance on the Iraq war is unique for GOP candidates (save Pataki). Unlike Chuck Hagel, whose only hope is through voters valuing his principles, Brownback’s principles have appeal to a larger segment of the primary voting base. Standing up for one’s beliefs is a tactic that I’d recommend to any politician; it just happens to be something that can realistically be expect to propel Brownback to the nomination.
I agree. Brownback is certainly positioning himself as the candidate with principles. Perhaps not all GOP primary voters with agree with his principles, but compared to the other jokers in the running, Brownback comes out looking the least wishy-washy on the issues that matter most in the Republican Primary.
[powered by WordPress.]
Blogging Against Senator Sam Brownback Since March 2005
I am a student of political science at the University of Kansas. Contact me with any questions, comments or tips.
21 queries. 0.348 seconds
January 17th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Nate,
This is one area I agree with Brownback. I am all for some form of a flat or “fair” tax. Just think, no more audits, no more difficult and confusing tax forms. There is a ultra right wing (he calls himeself a libertarian) radio talk show host named Neil Boortz who actually had a great plan for a fair tax. Basically, you pay your taxes according to your consumption. Those with more money who spend more - pay more. That’s the way it should be, in my opinion. He wrote a book about it, never read it, but caught excerpts and it seemed like a good idea to me. Here’s a link if anyone wants to look.
http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410
Mind you, I don’t subscribe to much that he says, but like Brownback I’m with them on this one.
January 21st, 2007 at 12:17 pm
His reasoning is “the earth is flat, so the tax should be too”
January 24th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The flat tax is not a fair tax and disproportionately benefits the rich. Working and middle-class families spend much more of their incomes than wealthy people do out of necessity and so a flat sales (or “consumption”) tax is a very regressive system. What makes a lot more sense is a progressive tax code that taxes income and corporate profits. We could reduce taxes on lower-income people (including payroll taxes) by shifting the tax burden to the rich and big business and by rewriting the tax code to remove their subsidies, loopholes, and tax shelters. You know, during the height of Enron’s success (fradulent as it later turned out to be), they actually were paying negative taxes - taking in more in tax rebates than they were paying.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:15 am
In order to be revenue-neutral, a national sales tax à la Neil Boortz would have to be set at a rate somewhere north of 50%. Which would (a) ravage the poor and (b) drive many of them, and some of the rest of us, into the black market.
Aside: isn’t it odd how so many of the places that are regularly pilloried in the right-wing media for being overtaxed hellholes (California, Massachusetts, New York) also happen to be the ones that lead the nation in innovation, technology, finance, and overall excellence? How does that work??
January 25th, 2007 at 10:32 am
BrendanM– I undestand your points, however a flat income tax is not a consumption tax, as evidenced by the very definition of the terms. As far as he has stated thus far, Brownback supports only a flat income tax.
vaara– I’m not sure what your point is in trying to equate “overtaxed hellholes” with their contribution to innovation, technology, etc. What do high taxes have to do with businesses that offer innovation and technology? Perhaps their geographical location, historical significance, and population clustering have more to do with their outputs rather than high taxes (Oh, and proximity to some of the world’s finest research universities). If businesses or citizens don’t like high taxes, they are more than free to move to another location.